x

David dOrton-Gibson

Training for Professionals MD

6357 Profile Views

About Me

.

my expertise in the industry

over 30 years

David's Recent Activity

Indeed Matthew, the issue to be aware of is that if you post the notice today you need to use the new form, not the one on the DLUHC site. They tend to update the site the day of the change, hence Friday in my post but important not to get caught out using the wrong form.

From: David dOrton-Gibson 29 September 2021 13:22 PM

Be aware the link in this article currently takes you to the OLD version of the notices. The new version we think will be released my DLUHC (the old MHCLG) on Friday. The actual forms in legislation can be found here legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2021/994/contents/made

From: David dOrton-Gibson 29 September 2021 08:15 AM

You are not entitled to leave any earlier that the end of the fixed term contract you signed. However, if the landlord wants possession they may be willing to agree for you to leave earlier and perhaps this is a discussion worth having. You might then be able to go and find a new property to rent and move at your convenience.

From: David dOrton-Gibson 15 March 2021 11:19 AM

You are right the current section 21 notice is 6 months long, however, you cannot presume you will get the property back on the 14 July as if the tenant does not choose to move out you might have to await months longer. There is nothing in law to stop you selling the property with the tenant in situ though. Original plan was for longer notices to end the end of March (meaning a notice serve 1 April would expire 1 June, but we cannot be sure the longer notice periods will be lifted the way the current virus figures are looking.

From: David dOrton-Gibson 14 January 2021 23:46 PM

But not in a single transaction. Therefore it only applies to very high value properties.

From: David dOrton-Gibson 10 September 2020 08:27 AM

Sorry but i think you are getting confused. The only or principle home is the exact wording from the Housing Act 1988 Schedule 1 para 10 that excludes resident landlords from giving assured shorthold tenancies. A tenancy in respect of which the following conditions are fulfilled— (a)that the dwelling-house forms part only of a building and, except in a case where the dwelling-house also forms part of a flat, the building is not a purpose-built block of flats; and (b)that, subject to Part III of this Schedule, the tenancy was granted by an individual who, at the time when the tenancy was granted, occupied as his only or principal home another dwelling-house which,— (i)in the case mentioned in paragraph (a) above, also forms part of the flat; or (ii)in any other case, also forms part of the building; and (c)that, subject to Part III of this Schedule, at all times since the tenancy was granted the interest of the landlord under the tenancy has belonged to an individual who, at the time he owned that interest, occupied as his only or principal home another dwelling-house which,— (i)in the case mentioned in paragraph (a) above, also formed part of the flat; or (ii)in any other case, also formed part of the building; and (d)that the tenancy is not one which is excluded from this sub-paragraph by sub-paragraph (3) below.

From: David dOrton-Gibson 02 September 2020 16:49 PM

Hi Tina and sorry to hear of your problems. The tenant is wrong and they should still pay the rent (the word "holiday" was a poor choice, it was really a deferment of rent). Like wise the Mortgage "holiday" only delays when you have to pay it but they will typically charge interest on the unpaid interest. If you tenant owes as much rent as you say you should be able to request the housing benefit is sent to you directly. This won't cure 8 months of arrears but may help cash flow. The article above describes changes to notice service and with over 6 months worth of arrears you now only need to serve 4 weeks notice under section 8 ground 8. In this tricky time it would be worth engaging a professional to undertake the possession action.

From: David dOrton-Gibson 02 September 2020 16:06 PM

We do indeed agree it is possible to have more than one home. I think we even agree it is possible to have more than one principle home. The question then, for the courts, is to decide two points, firstly would one night a month make that a principle home and secondly how many principle homes could one have, in theory about 30 if you only need one night but I suspect one would struggle to argue more than two. The two cases I mentioned only dealt with two properties and the fact it got to court arguing over two makes me concerned that more than 2 would be even more difficult. My concern lies on the downside. If a reader did lodger agreements with say four properties, staying one night a month in each and a court decide that they were not principle homes then think of the consequences. The landlord could be guilty of the criminal offence of unlawful eviction (for not getting a court order for an eviction. As a resident landlord (residing in the property) you do not use an AST and so deposits would not need protection, you would not need to issue a how to rent guide and other possible issues. But if the court found against you there could be a string of offences, hence the advice to check the advice of your solicitor who may have to defend you in court.

From: David dOrton-Gibson 02 September 2020 10:49 AM

Hi Paul and thanks for your reply. I don't think my reply said you can't have more than one principle home (you obviously can't have more than one "only" home). Indeed I can think of two court cases on exactly this point and this is the reason the law uses two words, "only" or "principle"(note it is "or" not "and"). I stand by my comment, thinking that staying in a property one night a month seems to me to be very unlikely to qualify as your"principle" home. neither you nor I can say categorically as at the end of the day only a judge could decide. However, before any readers follow your advice I would suggest they talk to their solicitor and study Street v Mountford case and make a careful assessment of the liability.

From: David dOrton-Gibson 02 September 2020 09:08 AM

The lodger plan above will not work. The Housing Act 1988 Schedule 1, excluded tenancies, is quite clear the property has to be the only or principle home of the landlord. Staying once a month is not likely to meet that test. Think Street v Mountford where the court ignored the paperwork and looked at the facts and rule the letting was not a licence but a tenant, despite the best clever wiles of a solicitor landlord. Therefore to make it work you would have to move into the rented property and live there properly. On another note I cannot reconcile the notice periods in the article with the legislation. For example ground 14, anti social behaviour is now back to its normal "no notice period", not 4 weeks as stated above.

From: David dOrton-Gibson 01 September 2020 17:46 PM

Just to be clear. The court extension is till 20 September, not March. The requirement to serve section 8 and 21 for 6 months will run till end March. There is a question of what benefit the 4 week delay to the courts will have when they have been closed for 5 months. The simple answer is that it takes it beyond the beginning of September when Parliament sits again so they can pass other legislation. For example, they could suspend section 21 and ground 8 so any claim had to be discretionary and the judge could decide based on the information about each case. This would require an act to amend the Housing Act 1988. Do not expect this to be the last amendment. The comment about licences is correct as they state licences within the Protection From Eviction Act. As Paul says, resident landlords with lodgers are excluded from Protection from Eviction, but the article does not talk about lodgers of resident landlords.

From: David dOrton-Gibson 25 August 2020 07:58 AM

Breaking News